by cube » Sat 19 Jul 2008, 05:29:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'P')erhaps as in the UK, there is no direct comparison between an old and new nuclear power plant due to the greatly increased size of the new ones? It is possible that what has been proposed would allow the US to "stay even".
You do have a good point. New plants today have a higher capacity than the older ones but I think MOST people are unaware of how serious this situation is.
IMHO we are in a crisis state today.
here's the proof: The above map shows we have 55 nuclear reactors that have been in operation for 20 to 29 years. Nuclear plants back in those days were only meant to last ("service life") for 30 years. An application for a service life extension can be applied for some reactors to give us more time. Assume a new reactor with a single standard of 1,000 MW, then we'd need to deliver 43 new nuclear reactors in 10 years just to replace the first wave of old plants that will be retired. The 2nd wave (10 years) would require 51 reactors. The last 2 reactors on the map we'll just ignore.
So basically we have to bring online 94 nuclear reactors within 20 years just to stay even. If we "fast track" the project today by working on 7 reactors simultaneously then the first batch will be brought online in 5 years. Every year after that a new batch of 6 or 7 reactors would need to be brought online for the next 15 years straight. Assuming it takes 5 years to deliver a reactor, at the height of construction, 30 or 35 nuclear reactors would need to be under construction simultaneously.
*That's not happening*